No, that is not what the quote says. It says "the material is not present in their vaccines" AND "it is not listed ..." Those are two separate claims, which btw are not inconsistent.
Pardon me for not backscrolling far enough. It is on another page already. I was addressing the comment I directly replied to.
It was ~5 hours earlier, and it was a reply to you, and you were the author of the very next post. So not sure if you just didn't read it, or if you were so flustered by the chaff you were throwing out that you just forgot, but either way you should have been aware.
Both manufacturers told Reuters the material is not present in their vaccines,
* and it is not listed among the publicly shared ingredients of the vaccines.*
That does not mean it is not present. It just means that it has not been disclosed, publicly under the guise of proprietary ingredients which can be withheld from dissemination...
No, that is not what the quote says. It says "the material is not present in their vaccines" AND "it is not listed ..." Those are two separate claims, which btw are not inconsistent.
Yes I did. And a lot more and not just now, but days before I even bothered posting the link to the patent in the first place.
Can you say for sure that graphene oxide is not present, or are you relying solely on your fact checkers who don't know and can't know because they do not have access to all of the facts ?
When even casual readers can simply find the answers you ask for it makes us wonder about your sincerity in stating that you read the source material.
Lazy8 wrote:
Assuming the claim that the vaccines mentioned actually contain graphene oxide is even true (neither of us has any way to verify this) there is massive clinical evidence of their safety and efficacy. This is like waving a red flag about the deadly dangers of high-pressure air in car tires.
Your continued misreading/misunderstanding of information appears willful, or you would randomly find your way to the correct answers more often. You are a conundrum.
So you gonna be a fact checker when you grow up ?
Pardon me for not backscrolling far enough. It is on another page already. I was addressing the comment I directly replied to.
Yes I did. And a lot more and not just now, but days before I even bothered posting the link to the patent in the first place.
<stuff deleted>
Can you say for sure that graphene oxide is not present, or are you relying solely on your fact checkers who don't know and can't know because they do not have access to all of the facts ?
When even casual readers can simply find the answers you ask for it makes us wonder about your sincerity in stating that you read the source material.
Lazy8 wrote:
Assuming the claim that the vaccines mentioned actually contain graphene oxide is even true (neither of us has any way to verify this) there is massive clinical evidence of their safety and efficacy. This is like waving a red flag about the deadly dangers of high-pressure air in car tires.
Your continued misreading/misunderstanding of information appears willful, or you would randomly find your way to the correct answers more often. You are a conundrum.
The author of this article has no background on the subject he claims enough expertise to debunk. . Alex Kasprak is a science writer and journalist whose work has been featured in The Atlantic, Motherboard, New Scientist, and other venues. Prior to joining Snopes, he was a staff science writer at BuzzFeed and a science communicator at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. He has master's degrees in geological sciences from Brown University and in science writing from Johns Hopkins University. He once found the world’s first Iberian phytosaur fossil, if you are into that kind of thing. Expertise. Isn't that or the lack of, how we discredit people who profess to be certain of things. Isn't that the way Fauci has been propped up all this time ... Nobody knows more about these things than Fauci and anyone who questions Fauci is just plain wrong before they get started. Is there one voice, one last word for all things Covid ? If so, who or what ? Who or what is the ultimate source to tell us what and what not to do ?
The expertise is in a vital technology called "reading", wherein you check the sources of the information used as evidence in the claim. You did read the article, right?
Yes I did. And a lot more and not just now, but days before I even bothered posting the link to the patent in the first place.
The author cites this as proof that there is none of the compound in question, present.
From the article ...
Even more problematic for those who claim that graphene oxide has been added to mRNA vaccines is the coloring. These vaccines are clear to mildly cloudy, but as highlighted by Reuter’s, Matthew Diasio, an American Chemical Society Congressional Science & Engineering fellow, stated that a sample that contained even 1% of graphene oxide would look dark if not black. This is simply not what the vaccines look like.
Graphene oxide is a component of some hydogels. Hydrogel is the primary polymer for contact lenses, Silicone Hydrogel. Contact lenses are clear, clear as a bell ... How would this or any other chemist know what color the vaccine would be without adding it to the vaccine. Who has done this ? Someone in the Snopes Laboratory ?
Graphene oxide is a “single-atomic layered material” made through the oxidation of graphite (⯠here â¯). When chemically reduced (⯠bit.ly/3yAcXpn â¯,⯠here ), graphene oxide can create graphene which has been described as “the strongest, thinnest and most conductive material on earth” (⯠here ).
Medical experts at Meedan’s Health Desk explain⯠here ⯠that this compound, which has been studied for multiple biomedical applications including biosensors and drug delivery, could be toxic to humans in certain amounts.
But in the case of its use in potential vaccines, current research indicates these would contain such small quantities that it would not be toxic to human cells.
(Remember cyclamates ??)
The medical experts said that “many more studies and trials are needed” to determine whether the compound would be completely safe and effective for biomedical applications.
Both manufacturers told Reuters the material is not present in their vaccines,
* and it is not listed among the publicly shared ingredients of the vaccines.*
That does not mean it is not present. It just means that it has not been disclosed, publicly under the guise of proprietary ingredients which can be withheld from dissemination.
Can you say for sure that graphene oxide is not present, or are you relying solely on your fact checkers who don't know and can't know because they do not have access to all of the facts ?
I have found endless articles about using graphene oxide as a delivery agent for components in vaccines and other medical compounds. Why is that ? Sounds to me like it is already widely used ...
I'm sort of with you, but my 'renewal' date wouldn't be until ~ November. So I'm patiently waiting for 'official' policy and trying to do the right thing along the way. But the behaviors I see from people who are at risk (either by health or economic position), make me wonder why I'm bothering. I have a pretty major trip possibility coming at the end of the year, and if official policy hasn't caught up by then, I'll likely finagle my way to a booster regardless. The whole 'greater good' thing requires input from everyone... well at least a majority. Right now that's just not where we are as a country/society/world population.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Aug 18, 2021 - 7:47pm
R_P wrote:
Maybe if everyone runs for the booster now, they might end up a supply problem.
If all those pharmacies/outlets tell you to wait, you can wait or cheat. Since everything seems pretty decentralized, cheating might be easy. If one pharmacy doesn't care, you got your shot.
Seems to involve a bit of fudging.
Unclear to me why the government is waiting till September 20 to start the booster program for all, and saying people should wait until the 8-month mark. Why not just open it to all right now? They say they are waiting for FDA and CDC sign off, but they already announced the start date of September 20. None of this makes sense to me.
Maybe if everyone (i.e. the vaccinated) runs for the booster now, they might end up with a supply problem (see early masking). The focus seems to be on boosters for the immuno-suppressed.
If all those pharmacies/outlets tell you to wait, you can wait or cheat. Since everything seems pretty decentralized, cheating might be easy (as your original post suggests). If one pharmacy doesn't care and tells you to come over, you got your shot.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Aug 18, 2021 - 7:39pm
R_P wrote:
No. There's no shortage of vaccines (in the US), there's a shortage of people taking vaccines.
It doesn't seem to be recommended yet (for everyone), but you could simply ask a pharmacy if it's possible to have one. Or two pharmacies. Or three...
Seems to involve a bit of fudging.
Unclear to me why the government is waiting till September 20 to start the booster program for all, and saying people should wait until the 8-month mark. Why not just open it to all right now? They say they are waiting for FDA and CDC sign off, but they already announced the start date of September 20. None of this makes sense to me.
No. There's no shortage of vaccines (in the US), there's a shortage of people taking vaccines.
It doesn't seem to be recommended yet (for everyone), but you could simply ask a pharmacy if it's possible to have one (for your purpose). Or two pharmacies. Or three...
The author of this article has no background on the subject he claims enough expertise to debunk.
. Alex Kasprak is a science writer and journalist whose work has been featured in The Atlantic, Motherboard, New Scientist, and other venues. Prior to joining Snopes, he was a staff science writer at BuzzFeed and a science communicator at NASAâs Jet Propulsion Laboratory. He has master's degrees in geological sciences from Brown University and in science writing from Johns Hopkins University. He once found the worldâs first Iberian phytosaur fossil, if you are into that kind of thing.
Expertise. Isn't that or the lack of, how we discredit people who profess to be certain of things.
Isn't that the way Fauci has been propped up all this time ... Nobody knows more about these things than Fauci and anyone who questions Fauci is just plain wrong before they get started.
Is there one voice, one last word for all things Covid ? If so, who or what ? Who or what is the ultimate source to tell us what and what not to do ?
The expertise is in a vital technology called "reading", wherein you check the sources of the information used as evidence in the claim. You did read the article, right?
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Aug 18, 2021 - 6:50pm
I am hearing people I know talking about getting their third shot booster from local pharmacies and other outlets. I am hearing people say no one administering the vaccine is asking questions. Maybe they are assuming the person is getting his or her first shot. Maybe they are assuming the person getting the shot is immunocompromised and this is his or her booster shot. Apparently, it is a version of donât ask, donât tell.
I suspect many of you are aware of this as well.
I would like to get a booster shot of Phizer. My second shot was mid-February, so I am at the 6-month mark, the point at which studies have indicated that the efficacy of the vaccine begins to wane, especially against the Delta variant. Yes, I would like to get that booster shot, and people are telling me I could do so right now at a local pharmacy. However, I am bothered by the ethical implications. I am not immunocompromised. My inclination is to wait my turn. It is in my DNA, so to speak (and no pun intended).
